Religions > Atheism > School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 10:22:10 PM |
| Object: |
School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
That any child would be forced to sit in class with this person is abhorant.
I'm not denying it's right to teach, but that does not mean the right of
students should be violated by forcing them to be in the presence of someone
they feel to be living an unclean, inmmoral lifestyle. If the kids don't
have a problem with it, then fine; let it teach.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06090805.html
Parent: "I have to go home and tell a 14 year old you have to talk to a
teacher who's a male in female clothing"
BATAVIA, New York, September 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A school district
in western New York has refused to transfer high school students out of
classes being taught by a transsexual teacher, denying a request by parents.
Five parents submitted written requests to the district board, asking that
their children be removed from the classroom of a male teacher undergoing
sex change medical treatment, WSTM.com reported. The earth sciences teacher
has begun dressing as a woman. The teacher has been with the Batavia School
District for eight years.
Superintendent Richard Stutzman said the parents' requests did not meet the
district guidelines. Other students were granted transfers based on changes
to their program of study.
The Batavia School District held an information meeting for parents August
28. Legal experts presented information on the teacher's rights and
protections to more than 100 parents, reported News 10NBC. A transgender
expert and a doctor were also in attendance. Parents received notification
of the situation one week before the meeting.
Some parents were dismayed by the news. "I have to go home and tell a 14
year old you have to talk to a teacher who's a male in female clothing. And
if you don't address her as a she in 2 weeks, it's harassment because you
should be transitioned by now," Batavia parent Amber Robinson told News
10NBC after the meeting.
The district plans to hold a community-wide meeting on the issue September
12th.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
29 Sep 2006 05:15:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past mistakes
should not be brought up continually, so unless you say it again, we
will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past, you
keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a pregnant
woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of her, so I
am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier statements about
parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it means
something different than what was said.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or a
child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
29 Sep 2006 06:06:41 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
29 Sep 2006 07:17:19 PM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
29 Sep 2006 11:04:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 01:11:22 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Well, that certainly sounds like something to stay away from.
Ropbert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 01:25:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Well, that certainly sounds like something to stay away from.
Ropbert B. Winn
Since you are male, you will never have to worry about getting one. If
the woman does not want to remain pregnant, an abortion is her only
viable option that will actually help her.. Abortion is a very safe
medical procedure with a very low incidence of complications and side
effects. The death rate from an abortion performed by a properly
trained medical doctor in a medical clinic is less than 1/10 the death
rate for continuing the pregnancy through childbirth. What's more, the
cost of an abortion is only a around $350 - $500 in most places, less
than 1/10 the cost of delivery without complications, and not even
counting the extra expenses incurred during the pregnancy itself.
What's more, abortions are ONLY performed on women that ask for them.
Women must make the decision to get an abortion, and then seek out the
doctor specifically. Therefore, women that desire to get an abortion
think it is something that they need to seek out, since staying away
from it does not accomplish their goal of ending their pregnancies.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 08:33:18 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Well, that certainly sounds like something to stay away from.
Ropbert B. Winn
Since you are male, you will never have to worry about getting one. If
the woman does not want to remain pregnant, an abortion is her only
viable option that will actually help her.. Abortion is a very safe
medical procedure with a very low incidence of complications and side
effects. The death rate from an abortion performed by a properly
trained medical doctor in a medical clinic is less than 1/10 the death
rate for continuing the pregnancy through childbirth. What's more, the
cost of an abortion is only a around $350 - $500 in most places, less
than 1/10 the cost of delivery without complications, and not even
counting the extra expenses incurred during the pregnancy itself.
What's more, abortions are ONLY performed on women that ask for them.
Women must make the decision to get an abortion, and then seek out the
doctor specifically. Therefore, women that desire to get an abortion
think it is something that they need to seek out, since staying away
from it does not accomplish their goal of ending their pregnancies.
Women are not really the problem, Mark. Adulterous men are the
problem. When Dateline NBC sets up a house to trap pedophiles, how
many women do you see going to the house?
Did you ever think about that?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 12:17:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Well, that certainly sounds like something to stay away from.
Ropbert B. Winn
Since you are male, you will never have to worry about getting one. If
the woman does not want to remain pregnant, an abortion is her only
viable option that will actually help her.. Abortion is a very safe
medical procedure with a very low incidence of complications and side
effects. The death rate from an abortion performed by a properly
trained medical doctor in a medical clinic is less than 1/10 the death
rate for continuing the pregnancy through childbirth. What's more, the
cost of an abortion is only a around $350 - $500 in most places, less
than 1/10 the cost of delivery without complications, and not even
counting the extra expenses incurred during the pregnancy itself.
What's more, abortions are ONLY performed on women that ask for them.
Women must make the decision to get an abortion, and then seek out the
doctor specifically. Therefore, women that desire to get an abortion
think it is something that they need to seek out, since staying away
from it does not accomplish their goal of ending their pregnancies.
Women are not really the problem, Mark.
They are the only ones that can get an abortion.
Adulterous men are the problem.
Most abortions have nothing to do with adultery. Most of them are due
to single people having sex, and a fair number are because the married
couple had sex. Therefore, adulterous men, i.e. married men that have
sex with women other than their wives and get those women pregnant
When Dateline NBC sets up a house to trap pedophiles, how
many women do you see going to the house?
No idea. Never saw the show. And if the bait was designed to catch
men, then most of the people you will get are men. Besides, those
shows get edited. However, pedophilia has nothing to do with adultery.
Are you saying that most or all of the men going into the house were
married? Where is your evidence of that?
Did you ever think about that?
Robert B. Winn
First, I cannot consider evidence that I have not seen. Never assume
that everyone has seen the same shows that you have. Second, you are
claiming correlations between two different groups (pedophiles caught
in a sting and how many were married) that is not present, AND a
correlation between an women that get an abortion and how many were
gotten pregnant by married men that were not their husbands, for which
you have presented no evidence for whatsoever.
Your post contains so many logical fallacies that it is not funny. And
the complete lack of supporting evidence makes your premise a joke.
Some data points that you need to provide with objective support for
are (assume that the numbers are for one year):
Number of women that get an abortion
Number of single women that had sex with single men, got pregnant, and
got an abortion, since those instances need to be subtracted from the
total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of married women that had sex with their husbands, got pregnant,
and got an abortion, since those numbers will also need to be
subtracted from the total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of those women that were single and got pregnant by sex with a
married man (the adulterous man) and got an abortion.
Number of women that were married and got pregnant by a man not her
husband (the adulterous woman) and got an abortion.
Number of married men that are pedophiles.
Number of married men that are pedophiles AND that got a woman other
than his wife pregnant.
Show the correlation between these groups except for the obvious number
of women that got an abortion.
Single women having sex with single men is not adultery, nor is married
women having sex with their husbands, so neither of those groups can be
included in the total number of women that got an abortion because of
adultery.
You have made a ridiculous claim again, and you are being asked to
support your claim. There is no reason to believe that there is
anything that shows that adulterous men, i.e. married men that are
having adulterous relationships, cause a significant number of
abortions. The pedophilia is not even related to abortion or adultery,
so you need to prove that assertion as well.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 01:22:04 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Well, that certainly sounds like something to stay away from.
Ropbert B. Winn
Since you are male, you will never have to worry about getting one. If
the woman does not want to remain pregnant, an abortion is her only
viable option that will actually help her.. Abortion is a very safe
medical procedure with a very low incidence of complications and side
effects. The death rate from an abortion performed by a properly
trained medical doctor in a medical clinic is less than 1/10 the death
rate for continuing the pregnancy through childbirth. What's more, the
cost of an abortion is only a around $350 - $500 in most places, less
than 1/10 the cost of delivery without complications, and not even
counting the extra expenses incurred during the pregnancy itself.
What's more, abortions are ONLY performed on women that ask for them.
Women must make the decision to get an abortion, and then seek out the
doctor specifically. Therefore, women that desire to get an abortion
think it is something that they need to seek out, since staying away
from it does not accomplish their goal of ending their pregnancies.
Women are not really the problem, Mark.
They are the only ones that can get an abortion.
Adulterous men are the problem.
Most abortions have nothing to do with adultery. Most of them are due
to single people having sex, and a fair number are because the married
couple had sex. Therefore, adulterous men, i.e. married men that have
sex with women other than their wives and get those women pregnant
When Dateline NBC sets up a house to trap pedophiles, how
many women do you see going to the house?
No idea. Never saw the show. And if the bait was designed to catch
men, then most of the people you will get are men. Besides, those
shows get edited. However, pedophilia has nothing to do with adultery.
Are you saying that most or all of the men going into the house were
married? Where is your evidence of that?
Did you ever think about that?
Robert B. Winn
First, I cannot consider evidence that I have not seen. Never assume
that everyone has seen the same shows that you have. Second, you are
claiming correlations between two different groups (pedophiles caught
in a sting and how many were married) that is not present, AND a
correlation between an women that get an abortion and how many were
gotten pregnant by married men that were not their husbands, for which
you have presented no evidence for whatsoever.
Your post contains so many logical fallacies that it is not funny. And
the complete lack of supporting evidence makes your premise a joke.
Some data points that you need to provide with objective support for
are (assume that the numbers are for one year):
Number of women that get an abortion
Number of single women that had sex with single men, got pregnant, and
got an abortion, since those instances need to be subtracted from the
total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of married women that had sex with their husbands, got pregnant,
and got an abortion, since those numbers will also need to be
subtracted from the total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of those women that were single and got pregnant by sex with a
married man (the adulterous man) and got an abortion.
Number of women that were married and got pregnant by a man not her
husband (the adulterous woman) and got an abortion.
Number of married men that are pedophiles.
Number of married men that are pedophiles AND that got a woman other
than his wife pregnant.
Show the correlation between these groups except for the obvious number
of women that got an abortion.
Single women having sex with single men is not adultery, nor is married
women having sex with their husbands, so neither of those groups can be
included in the total number of women that got an abortion because of
adultery.
You have made a ridiculous claim again, and you are being asked to
support your claim. There is no reason to believe that there is
anything that shows that adulterous men, i.e. married men that are
having adulterous relationships, cause a significant number of
abortions. The pedophilia is not even related to abortion or adultery,
so you need to prove that assertion as well.
Blah, blah blah. Why aren't there any women going to meet these
underage teens? These decoys go online pretending to be promiscuous
teenagers or inexperienced teenagers curious about sex. If any women
had responded, I am sure that Dateline NBC would have considered it
newsworthy and would have been anxious to talk with those women.
Instead all we see is a parade of men going to the houses. Could you
explain why that is?
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 02:47:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September 2006 6:15
pm Mark Sebree perhaps from wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right about
one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his past
mistakes should not be brought up continually, so unless you say
it again, we will just pretend you never said it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not past,
you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite inside of
her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of his earlier
statements about parasites.
How can it be a retraction when I never made those statements in the
first place? THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PROVE YOUR
ASSERTIONS! The fact that you cannot shows you to be a liar. Not to
mention trouble understanding what you read. You cannot seem to
understand what you read, so you distort what you read so that it
means something different than what was said.
Would you like to borrow my wall? Banging your head against it (nice
hard concrete) isn't as painful as getting Robert to answer questions
honestly and truthfully.
He is still pretending that a human fetus or embryo is not
a child.
Nope. I am not pretending anything. An embryo/fetus is not a child,
as it most certainly was not considered to be such before a handful of
decades ago. And in any case, nothing gives it any right to
unrestricted use of the woman's body against her wishes. No person
has
any such right. And the woman is allowed to defend herself from any
such use and harm in any manner that she sees fit, provided it uses
reasonable force to end that usage immediately.
child n. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam Webster dictionary
Robert B. Winn
You are so concerned about ancient definitions of things, why are you
using a modern and not completely accepted definition of a "child" for
your definition here? Because it suits your lies, and gives you an
excuse to force women to suffer needlessly for your religious beliefs
without any regard for their beliefs or opinions or desires? You have
been told repeatedly, and you have been shown repeatedly, that the
originals stated that Mary(Miriam) was pregnant, not that she had a
child with her.
What's more, the historical context has been explained to you before
as
well. No ancient people considered an embryo/fetus to be a person or
a child because the maternal and infant mortality rates were so high.
Maternal death, stillbirth, and infant mortality was rather common,
ending the lives of as many as 10% of the fetuses and newborns, as
well
as no small number of women. And that is not even taking into account
the mortality rates that were NOT based on things like birth defects.
Child mortality rates were much higher.
Mark Sebree
Well, actually, child mortality rates were probably lower back then
than today when you factor in the deaths of children who die from
homicide by abortion.
Robert B. Winn
Nope. Since the deaths of children by abortion was zero then and is
zero today, that means that the child mortality rate still remains
high. Children are not at all affected by abortion since children have
been born. Abortion only affects the pregnant woman since she is the
one that the abortion is performed on.
Well, that certainly sounds like something to stay away from.
Ropbert B. Winn
Since you are male, you will never have to worry about getting one. If
the woman does not want to remain pregnant, an abortion is her only
viable option that will actually help her.. Abortion is a very safe
medical procedure with a very low incidence of complications and side
effects. The death rate from an abortion performed by a properly
trained medical doctor in a medical clinic is less than 1/10 the death
rate for continuing the pregnancy through childbirth. What's more, the
cost of an abortion is only a around $350 - $500 in most places, less
than 1/10 the cost of delivery without complications, and not even
counting the extra expenses incurred during the pregnancy itself.
What's more, abortions are ONLY performed on women that ask for them.
Women must make the decision to get an abortion, and then seek out the
doctor specifically. Therefore, women that desire to get an abortion
think it is something that they need to seek out, since staying away
from it does not accomplish their goal of ending their pregnancies.
Women are not really the problem, Mark.
They are the only ones that can get an abortion.
Adulterous men are the problem.
Most abortions have nothing to do with adultery. Most of them are due
to single people having sex, and a fair number are because the married
couple had sex. Therefore, adulterous men, i.e. married men that have
sex with women other than their wives and get those women pregnant
When Dateline NBC sets up a house to trap pedophiles, how
many women do you see going to the house?
No idea. Never saw the show. And if the bait was designed to catch
men, then most of the people you will get are men. Besides, those
shows get edited. However, pedophilia has nothing to do with adultery.
Are you saying that most or all of the men going into the house were
married? Where is your evidence of that?
Did you ever think about that?
Robert B. Winn
First, I cannot consider evidence that I have not seen. Never assume
that everyone has seen the same shows that you have. Second, you are
claiming correlations between two different groups (pedophiles caught
in a sting and how many were married) that is not present, AND a
correlation between an women that get an abortion and how many were
gotten pregnant by married men that were not their husbands, for which
you have presented no evidence for whatsoever.
Your post contains so many logical fallacies that it is not funny. And
the complete lack of supporting evidence makes your premise a joke.
Some data points that you need to provide with objective support for
are (assume that the numbers are for one year):
Number of women that get an abortion
Number of single women that had sex with single men, got pregnant, and
got an abortion, since those instances need to be subtracted from the
total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of married women that had sex with their husbands, got pregnant,
and got an abortion, since those numbers will also need to be
subtracted from the total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of those women that were single and got pregnant by sex with a
married man (the adulterous man) and got an abortion.
Number of women that were married and got pregnant by a man not her
husband (the adulterous woman) and got an abortion.
Number of married men that are pedophiles.
Number of married men that are pedophiles AND that got a woman other
than his wife pregnant.
Show the correlation between these groups except for the obvious number
of women that got an abortion.
Single women having sex with single men is not adultery, nor is married
women having sex with their husbands, so neither of those groups can be
included in the total number of women that got an abortion because of
adultery.
You have made a ridiculous claim again, and you are being asked to
support your claim. There is no reason to believe that there is
anything that shows that adulterous men, i.e. married men that are
having adulterous relationships, cause a significant number of
abortions. The pedophilia is not even related to abortion or adultery,
so you need to prove that assertion as well.
Blah, blah blah.
Meaning your claims have no basis in reality, and thus are false.
"Blah, blah, blah" describes most of your diversions and evasions quite
well. You cannot support your claims, and you refuse to even try.
Mainly because your claims are consistently false.
Why aren't there any women going to meet these
underage teens?
Because that particular sting targeted those interested in sex with
underage girls, which are primarily men.
And what does this have to do with your claim that most abortions are
the result of adulterous men?
These decoys go online pretending to be promiscuous
teenagers or inexperienced teenagers curious about sex.
Specifically, they were supposedly teenaged girls. As such, the
targets were adult men.
And what does this have to do with your claim about most abortions are
the result of adulterous men?
If any women
had responded, I am sure that Dateline NBC would have considered it
newsworthy and would have been anxious to talk with those women.
Perhaps. But stings of that sort are usually targeted to a particular
gender.
However, this has nothing to do with your claims that most abortions
are the result of married men having adulterous affairs.
Instead all we see is a parade of men going to the houses. Could you
explain why that is?
Robert B. Winn
Because the sting was targeting men, not women.
Can you support using objective, verifiable data your previous
assertions? In case you forgot, a real possibility since you have not
answered any questions about it or provided any support for it, here is
your assertion again, as it appears earlier in this post.
"Women are not really the problem, Mark. Adulterous men are the
problem."
The "problem" being discussed is abortion, and your are implying that
adulterous men are the root cause of most abortions. I have asked you
to support your position, and gave you a starting point in the types of
data points that you need to present and reference. You instead went
off on a tangent that has nothing to do with your premise.
Here are the relevant questions/data points again:
Number of women that get an abortion in a given year.
Number of single women that had sex with single men, got pregnant, and
got an abortion, since those instances need to be subtracted from the
total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of married women that had sex with their husbands, got pregnant,
and got an abortion, since those numbers will also need to be
subtracted from the total number of women that got an abortion.
Number of those women that were single and got pregnant by sex with a
married man (the adulterous man) and got an abortion.
Number of women that were married and got pregnant by a man not her
husband (the adulterous woman) and got an abortion.
So far, you have not presented any facts to support your claim. You
have instead avoid the subject. Therefore, there is no reason to think
that your claim is at all valid.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: School Refuses Student Transfers from Transsexual Teacher's Classroom |
30 Sep 2006 08:46:33 AM |
|
|
In News 1159623198.760574.113830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,,
at , typed this:
Mark Sebree wrote:
rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 29 September
2006 6:15 pm Mark Sebree perhaps from
wrote:
wrote:
Alan Ferris wrote:
On 28 Sep 2006 19:12:22 -0700, wrote:
Well, Mark, I can remember what you said, but you are right
about one
thing. Once a person has seen the error of his ways, his
past mistakes should not be brought up continually, so
unless you say it again, we will just pretend you never said
it.
So we should ignore your lies....no way Robert, they are not
past, you keep making them.
Well, what you do is your choice, Alan. Mark admitted that a
pregnant woman has a fetus or embryo instead of a parasite
inside of her, so I am going to count that as a retraction of
his earlier statements abou | | | | | | | | |
